A Paradise Conspiracyby Hamish Carnachan
An article from the Investigate Magazine, September 2003 .

This excellent analysis by the author of documents
obtained under the Official Information Act, combined with interviews,
gives an understanding of the concerns many people have about the political
aims of protagonists for marine reserves. We have made this document
available in its entirety on our web site so that it can serve as a reference
for those who study marine reserves, their implementation, consultation
and policies.

[use your BACK button to reverse out of this
document. or go to Seafriends Home]

.
'

Much like an Antarctic depression generating the trademark swell that
batters the region, an ugly storm is brewing over the conservation of Auckland’s
west coast, playground to a million people a year. It’s a storm which,
like the foreshore and seabed debacle, could soon envelop much of New Zealand
amid allegations that the Government’s real agenda for beaches has been
uncovered, as Hamish Carnachan reports.

The weather couldn’t be more fitting for a meeting to discuss the future
of Auckland’s wild coast line. It’s a cold, blustery and wet night in west
Auckland and rain beats down steadily on the roof of the Kelston Community
Centre – foul conditions that match the mood inside, but which have done
nothing to deter the turnout. The hall is packed to near capacity and the
atmosphere is as electric as the threatening black clouds outside.

Tempers are running high. This is a gathering organised by Sand and
Sea – a collective of “concerned coastal users interested in preserving
our coast and maintaining our rights to access and use our coastal resources
in a responsible and sustainable manner”, notes spokesperson John van der
Haas in his introductory speech. Assembled in the cramped hall are fisher-folk,
four-wheel drive enthusiasts, divers, politicians, horseriders, west coast
locals and even a marine biologist in opposition to the marine park proposal.
Their backgrounds are diverse but they all share the same fear – exclusion
from their favoured recreational pastimes.

Even those who have never ventured out to Auckland’s west coast will
be familiar with the area – its rugged natural beauty has attracted film
crews, both local and international for some years. The craggy coastline,
black sand beaches, towering cliffs and exploding swells have starred on
screens around the world. It is a place of unparalleled majesty shrouded
with both mist and mystique, providing an ideal setting for moody dramas
like The Piano or sword-wielding superheroes like Xena.

It is also the perfect playground for Auckland’s burgeoning population.
Few cities in the world would share such a close proximity to the expanse
of wilderness provided by Piha, Karekare and Muriwai beaches and the bordering
Waitakere Ranges. It is this popularity that now threatens the values that
attract so many visitors – at least that’s what some locals and conservation
lobby-groups are arguing, but they’re finding their moves to protect the
region are not sitting as pretty as the scenery.

Plans to preserve the Waitakere Ranges as a national park are already
in the pipeline. Members of Parliament from the Waitakere region are backing
the initiative and it appears to have gone down well – the area sees more
visitors each year than all of New Zealand’s national parks combined. Now,
though, an organisation innocuously calling itself the West Coast Working
Group is trying to garner support to take the conservation of the ‘wild
west coast’ one step further, by extending the protective umbrella over
the bush reserves to the marine environment – via the formation of a marine
park from Kaipara Harbour in the north to Port Waikato in the south.

As the debate surrounding Maori claims to the foreshore and seabed continues
to rage, opposition to the West Coast Working Group’s marine protection
proposal is also mounting amid fears that leisure activities will be restricted
in Auckland’s favourite recreational area. With the submission process
drawing to a close, the main opposition to the marine park, the Sand and
Sea Coastal Users Group, is hitting out with allegations and evidence it
says raise questions about the park proponent’s motives.

You can almost hear the collective groan from the Green-lobby: “Bloody
rednecks, all they do is take, take, take…” However, what the West Coast
Working Group (WCWG) has put down on paper – government documents released
under the Official Information Act – stands in stark contrast to what it
has said in the public domain, alleges Sand and Sea. This is what has given
rise to the group’s concerns over the openness of the consultation process.

Grumbling from the floor sums up their feelings: “Outrage” at the “deceitful
manner” in which the WCWG has gone about the whole process. Central to
Sand and Sea’s gripes is the reference to ‘marine reserves’ in the protection
proposal. For many of the fishermen and divers gathered, the term is a
foul expletive that would signal the end to their recreational endeavours
along the coast were it passed into law. “They would impose outrageous
restrictions on sensible citizens,” is a passing comment.

There is clearly confusion over what the WCWG hopes to achieve – a marine
park, or marine reserves. And there is a marked difference between the
two. While a marine park recognises an area as having significant cultural,
recreational and environmental values, and provides a degree of protection
to ensure those features aren’t squandered or threatened by over – development,
a marine reserve places a blanket ban on any extractive activity. No fishing,
no shellfish gathering, no diving for crayfish, in marine reserves – essentially
you can look, but don’t touch.

Publicly the WCWG, headed by Ken Catt, an executive of the Royal Forest
and Bird Protection Society, has highlighted in its discussion document
a series of “Hot Spots”, nine in total, “….that may warrant greater protection
as marine reserves…”

The word ‘reserve’ appears 76 times in the 50-page document.

Additionally, in the May 2003 issue of Forest and Bird magazine a feature
article reports on “Forest and Bird’s marine reserve proposal for Auckland’s
Wild West Coast”.

Yet, in declining an invitation to this meeting, Catt informs the chairman
of Sand and Sea in an email: “ I do not wish to attend and have yet another
evening of abuse, and listening to more orchestrated false statements concerning
the effects of a Park, and claims that members of our Group really want
to set up a chain of marine reserves.”

Does Forest and Bird seriously believe its opponents haven’t seen the
May issue of Forest and Bird. It is exactly the type of contradiction that
has Sand and Sea so perplexed, and is one of the main reasons the opposition
lobby-group was hastily set up three months ago to counter the proposal.

References to marine reserves go back to the inception of the West Coast
marine park concept, April 2001. The term is littered throughout the minutes
of WCWG meetings. For instance, at a meeting in June 2001 the group discussed
identifying “areas for greater protection” within a marine park, and noted
that an “area of Muriwai had been investigated as a marine reserve”.

Investigate has obtained an internal email sent by Catt to members of
the working group, which seems to clearly outline the intentions of the
WCWG. The convenor states in his correspondence dated 26 September 2002:
“ It is suggested that we reinvent the wheel by using the term ‘ no take
areas’ to cover what are in fact marine reserves with all of the Marine
Reserve Act controls.

“The Act is now being modified to make it much easier to apply for reserves
and it has been accepted that one application can cover a number of the
sites listed in the report as ‘hot spots’,” explains Catt in the email.

“We have been accused of having a secret agenda and if we plan to establish
what are in effect marine reserves but attempt to disguise this by calling
them ‘no take’ areas this accusation will have some foundation.”

But there’s little wonder accusations of “secret agenda” flew around:
Minutes from an August 2001 meeting state: “ It was however, strongly emphasised
and agreed that ‘no-take’ areas should be referred to as such and not called
Marine Reserves, to achieve greater support.”

Today, Catt assures Investigate that the WCWG “definitely has no plans
to impose marine reserves” – he says the group has neither the facilities
nor the jurisdiction to do so.

“ For some reason this recreational fishing group has come out of the
woodwork saying ‘no, no, we don’t need greater protection, we’re going
to be excluded’ and all sorts of other ridiculous arguments.

“ The talk about marine reserves in the meetings is being quoted completely
out of context. Well after that date, of those minutes, it was decided
that we weren’t going to go into ‘no take’ areas whatsoever.”

He says part of the problem with the confusion over the marine park/
marine reserve issue is that the documentation “probably wasn’t worded
quite clearly”.

Yet, despite Catt’s protestations that members of the group are not
interested in setting up a chain of marine reserves, a letter from Conservation
Minister Chris Carter to Peter Maddison, who is listed as a “stakeholder”
in the WCWG, indicates otherwise.

“ I am interested to hear of your work towards developing a network
of marine reserves on the west coast, “ writes Carter in the communication
dated 1 April 2003.

Under New Zealand’s Biodiversity Strategy, the Labour Government has
set a target of protecting 10 percent of the country’s marine environment
by 2010. In the letter, obtained under the Official Information Act, Carter
indicated that the west coast plan could “contribute towards the government’s
target”.

If you were looking for evidence of a backroom deal between Labour and
conservationists, say Sand and Sea, Carter’s wording is pretty clear.

“ I understand that your proposal is in line with my department’s aim
to develop an overall marine protection strategy based on a holistic coastal
classification system.”

The proposal put to Carter by Forest and Bird’s Waitakere branch was
to investigate “developing a network of Marine Reserves on Auckland’s West
Coast….. a trail blazing pilot for developing networks around New Zealand”.

It goes on to note that: “ We have made an application to the Department
of Conservation (Carter’s department) for funding to help us develop a
formal proposal for a network of marine reserves….Funding will enable us
to develop a formal proposal, revolutionising the way we develop marine
reserves in New Zealand. We hope the Department will view our proposal
favourably and see it as a significant step towards achieving the Government’s
targets…”

When Investigate drops the inevitable “care to explain?” question, Ken
Catt’s response is one of astonishment: “ I don’t believe it. What date
is it? Its not true.”

Unfortunately though, it’s there in black and white, complete with the
email address kiwicatt@xtra.co.nz, and Catt’s signature over Peter Maddison’s
name.

Initially, Conservation Minister Chris Carter declined to comment, stating
that as Minister of Conservation he must remain removed from the process
to retain impartiality. It wasn’t until Investigate pointed out that we
had documentation revealing he has had correspondence with members of the
working group that he decided to remark that any discussions were only
on an “informal” basis.

So much for perceived impartiality, and it does beg questions about
Carter’s role in other marine reserve proposals around the country.

It is not clear from either document what Maddison’s role was and why
Ken Catt signed on his behalf, nor is it clear whether he wrote to Carter
in his official capacity as a Forest and Bird executive, but for van der
Haas that’s beside the point – the two organizations are inextricably linked.
He says the WCWG is circulating “ a lot of misinformation” and Sand and
Sea are now “very wary of a hidden agenda”.

Even Catt admits that there is a conflict of interest between Forest
and Bird’s national policy, which supports the promotion of marine reserves,
and the working group mandate. But, he says, as convenor of the working
group he is bound to its decisions.

“ If the working group says it doesn’t want marine reserves we don’t
have marine reserves. Its all quite simple and straight forward really,”
says Catt.

“ Forest and Bird, unfortunately, have not helped in the slightest by
coming out with this bloody article. One of the leading marine biologists
in the country did this research and made it available to us. Forest and
Bird leapt upon that research and said these are areas that might be marine
reserves. In his (the biologist’s) report he says these are areas of exceptional
value that may need protecting at some stage in the future and what the
options are. But we’re years away from moving towards marine reserves if
any one is going to do it at all – its certainly not going to be us.”

It still smells fishy to Sand and Sea. It says the relationship is too
cosy and the public should realise that it is taxpayer money being used
to push this plan.

Forest and Bird was given a Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant worth
$50,000 by the Lottery Grants Board in December 2001. According to the
board the funding was awarded towards a Conservation Officer’s salary and
travel expenses to develop a plan for a marine park on Auckland’s west
coast.

Subsequently, it turns out that the Conservation Officer was employed
by Forest and Bird and was responsible to the Conservation Manager of the
society. Jaci Fowler, the author of the Forest and Bird article and the
WCWG “Public Discussion” document, filled the aforementioned position.

Is this a truly independent process, or is the relationship between
the Labour Government and the conservation charity less than transparent?

Says van der Haas: “ They (Forest and Bird) claim that the grant was
sought by their organisation because it was already an existing incorporated
society. It took us only about three weeks to get an incorporated society
status so that shoots Forest and Bird’s argument to pieces.”

As Catt points out though, the WCWG would have been required to show
that it has been operating as a society for at least a year before it could
be granted funding. Still, in hindsight he says that perhaps Forest and
Bird’s association with the project was “a mistake”.

Catt was quizzed on Forest and Bird’s involvement in the process at
a public meeting at Bethells Beach in early May. The allegation from the
floor was that Forest and Bird would use its influence in the WCWG to push
for the formation of marine reserves. Back then he made the same the assurance,
that it “ would not be the case”.

“ The draft legislation being drawn up has a whole list of community
representatives, not one of those is a Forest and Bird representative.
When the advisory group is set up, they will be controlling whatever happens
in the park, not Forest and Bird.”

But there is still contention from some quarters as to how representative
the current working group is. Fishing groups say the “hot spots” have the
highest recreational shore- based use. Trish Rea, spokesperson for the
recreational fishing lobby option4, signed the organisation up to Sand
and Sea when she learnt only one fishing representative was sitting on
that 15-member panel.

She says a lack of representation combined with the WCWG discussions
about “managing visitor impact” equals exclusion for people who enjoy certain
recreational activities, like casting a line.

“ I'd put my money on the fact that they’d be out and about restricting
what you’re doing on that beach, “ says Rea.

As with any consultation process, the results of public submissions
on the marine park will be used to argue for or against instatement. Sand
and Sea says consultation has been anything but fair and open, and even
suggests, “ The results of the proposal are being loaded by Forest and
Bird.”

In a recently released media statement, Catt says that the proposal
will only be abandoned if the “wider general public vote against (it)”.
In reference to members of option4 dominating public meetings at the expense
of local residents having their say, he goes on to state, “Our working
group has no intention of acting upon the wishes of pressure groups that
do not represent the cross section of the population. Our decision to progress
the matter further will be democratically based upon the submissions and
questionnaires we receive.”

But Sand and Sea questions the ‘democratic’ basis of the consultation
process, when, it says, more draft proposals were sent out to Forest and
Bird members, via their magazine, than entered the public domain. “ How
does that represent the cross section of the population?” asks van der
Haas.

Sand and Sea also has an issue with Catt’s reference to ‘ pressure groups’.
If anything, the documents sent to Investigate paint a picture of an organisation
using weight to influence the outcome of the submission and consultation
process. One of these is an email sent by Catt to west Auckland members
of Forest and Bird urging them to attend an upcoming meeting.

“ Unfortunately ‘Rent a Mob’ appeared at the Muriwai meeting intent
on stopping constructive discussion…” writes Catt. “ it is possible that
they will appear at other meetings and we therefore ask that those who
support the Marine Park concept attend the planned meeting to give us support…You
should shortly be receiving a copy of the questionnaire covering the project
which is to be included in the magazine. We need to prove support for the
project so please ensure that you complete and return the questionnaire.”

Rea now says it is very hard to believe anything the WCWG says in light
of these disclosures.

“ They haven’t involved the community,” she says. “ They’re wondering
why they are getting so much opposition – it’s because of the poor consultation.
When you’re talking one million visitors to Muriwai per year and they only
come out with 3000 of these (questionnaires), do they really value your
opinion?”

Again, Catt is candid in answering the allegations. He admits that questionnaires
were mailed out to local members of Forest and Bird, though he does not
recall how many, but says it was done to combat Sand and Sea stacking the
results.

“ Sand and Sea and option4 have a website with the answers already ticked,
so all people have to do is put their name on it and send it in. I was
told that option4 has sent the questionnaire to 10,000 recreational fishers.
So what’s the difference?”

If that is the case then there is no difference, but it would seem that
the whole process has now become a bit of a sham. How much weight can be
placed on the submission process when, if what Catt says is correct, both
parties are trying to load the results?

“That’s exactly it. Quite frankly the whole thing is utterly ridiculous.
The questionnaires we might as well throw in the wastepaper basket and
ignore them and just look at the proper submissions that come in, but I
don’t know if we’re going to do that or not.”

It is an admission the Minister of Conservation agrees is cause for
concern.

“ When I come to evaluate or sign off any marine reserve proposal my
department would look very closely at the consultation process,” says Carter.
“ If it wasn’t a fair process I would have to reject that proposal.”

Paul Hutchison, National MP for Port Waikato, has also waded into the
argument because he is wary of the Government’s previous community consultation
initiatives and says “huge cynicism” has already been generated over the
way the WCWG has handled this process.

In a letter to the Conservation Minister outlining his constituents’
concerns, Hutchison writes, “(They) do not feel they have been properly
consulted. The community are concerned they will have a management scheme
imposed on them that is being driven by politicians and pressure groups
north of the Manukau Heads.”

He believes the people of Port Waikato have been stung before by hastily
drafted legislation, which placed a ban on set nets to protect Maui’s Dolphin
(formerly known as North Island Hector’s dolphin).

Maui’s dolphin is critically endangered with as few as 100 to 150 still
alive. Commercial and recreational set nets have been blamed for the decline
of the species so, last year, the Minister of Fisheries, Pete Hodgson,
placed a ban on commercial set netting from Maunganui Bluff to Pariokariwa
Point, north of New Plymouth. All commercial set netting was also banned
in and around the Manukau Heads, but to the consternation of local residents
so too was recreational netting, despite a lack of evidence that the dolphins
actually enter the harbour.

A Department of Conservation information brochure on the topic says
Hodgson made the decision after “a process of public consultation, with
input from many people and organisations…” that isn’t how Hutchison sees
it. He says the Minister of Fisheries “ran roughshod over the community
consultation”.

“ There was strong evidence that little notice of the community was
taken….last year regarding Maui’s dolphin,” he says. “ An agreement was
reached for the local community including Maori to work with MAF in order
to ensure an appropriate management plan was carried out. The local community
was distressed when the Minister of Fisheries over-rode the previously
understood agreement established a no-netting policy within the Manukau
Heads.”

Part of the WCWG mandate for a marine park is to implement a marine
mammal sanctuary to provide Maui’s dolphin with greater refuge, but even
the Department of Conservation has stated that there is no logic in such
a proposal because the new legislation offers enough protection.

Sand and Sea says the WCWG is using emotional arguments, like the fate
of Maui’s dolphin, rather than supporting research to strengthen its argument.

A Forest and Bird media statement released in June this year, urging
action to better protect Maui’s dolphin, claims “at least five of the six
previous (dolphin) deaths were caused by fishing”.

Sceptical of the allegations, a member of Sand and Sea obtained the
autopsy results and discovered that only two deaths could be conclusively
linked to net entrapment. One of the other four had died of natural causes
and the remainder were so decomposed the report states that specifying
a cause of death would be pure conjecture.

The WCWG sees the combination of commercial and recreational fishing
catches on the west coast as a threat to fish stocks, and it says Auckland’s
increasing population will only lead to greater pressure being imposed
on those numbers from increased fishers. It is this argument that provided
the foundation for excluding commercial operations and creating “no-take”
areas within the proposed marine park, which would extend 12 nautical miles
out from the Mean High Water Springs.

Again, Sand and Sea argues that the logic is flawed. It says all of
the species sought by fishers move up and down the entire coast in migratory
schools, meaning they could be targeted outside the park boundaries. Additionally,
the commercial sector is already prohibited from trawling within a mile
of the coast.

Asked at a public forum whether the state of the biology on the coast
was under any threat, Fowler answered, “ For fish species I would say we
need much more research.”

And minutes from a WCWG meeting held in May 2003 disclose that, “ The
group agreed there were no facts” to justify pushing commercial operators
further out.

While Sand and Sea acknowledges there is a problem with shellfish being
stripped from exposed rock platforms, particularly at popular beaches like
Piha, Karekare and Muriwai, it points out that local communities have the
authority, under Section 186A of the Fisheries Act, to declare closures
for periods of up to two years.

Findings from an independent marine monitoring programme at Karekare
appear to back up the worth of such legislation. The ecology report states:
“We have learned a lot about the life cycles and were astounded to discover
that the little black flea mussel, an opportunist, grows to maturity in
3 months. The green-lipped mussel grows to maturity in 12-18 months, indicating
that there is a high potential for relatively quick comeback after a ‘disaster’.”

But Sand and Sea points out that no research has been done to determine
the state of the submarine shellfish beds. One recreational diver says
below the surface the stocks are fine because the rough nature of the Tasman
Sea protects them from being over-harvested.

However, that is why the working group was set up, according to Catt
–“ to discuss and determine “ what the community sees as the preferred
methods fro protecting the coastal environment and its biodiversity. He
says reserves were just one of many options and the pro-fishing lobby has
blown it out of all proportion.

It isn’t hard to see how things could have become misconstrued though.
Another reason given by the WCWG for greater protection of the west coast
marine environment highlights the confusion surrounding the plan. Stated
is the aim to develop a continuum from “ the land to the sea”, creating
a more holistic approach to environmental management.

“Greater marine protection will help to enhance the west coast as a
tourist destination whilst ensuring its sustainability,” is the reasoning
given in the discussion document. The suggestion is that this would translate
into greater visitor numbers through tourism. And yet, a couple of pages
later, “visitor impacts” is listed as one of the “threats” to the region.

Such a ‘land to sea’ continuum is an ideology echoed by the Waitakere
City Council, which links back to Hutchison’s comment about the management
scheme being driven by politicians north of the Manukau Heads.

In April 2001, on a Forest and Bird letterhead, Catt sent out what appears
to be an invitation to discuss the concept of a west coast marine park
at the Waitakere City Council chambers.

It says, “David Cunliffe, MP for Titirangi has our full support for
his vision of some form of marine park which might be established quickly
by legislation to protect immediately endangered species such as Hector’s
Dolphin.”

As recently as July, a page regarding the marine park appeared on Cunliffe’s
now-defunct website, in which it states that he and the Waitakere City
Mayor, Bob Harvey, are co-sponsors of the WCWG. It describes the concept
of enhanced protection for inshore fisheries from the Kaipara to the Manukau
within which “areas of ‘no-take’ reserve and areas of recreational use
would be agreed…” and calls the project one that “enjoys strong popular
support and would be a lasting complement to Waitakere’s on-shore ‘Eco-City’”.

In the agenda for the first meeting on the proposal in April 2001, chaired
by Harvey, both he and Cunliffe are listed as “possible stakeholders”.
Sand and Sea suspects that Catt approached the pair to become involved
and Harvey “jumped on board because he is very much for (marine) reserves”.
But Catt says Harvey was the one who approached him.

There doesn’t seem to be any real problem there, but Sand and Sea says
the mayor is being coy about disclosing his involvement, particularly now
that it faces mounting opposition.

“ He got in there behind Forest and Bird at the beginning to push for
this so he could take the credit if it worked, or take cover if it backfired,
“ says van der Haas.

The Waitakere City Council West Coast Plan clearly states a policy of
supporting “a West Coast Marine Reserve “ in the long term, and a goal
to “Support establishment of a West Coast Marine Park” in 2003/04.

Minutes from WCWG meetings detail letters emphasising Harvey and his
council’s “full support” for the marine park and a willingness to “help
out in any way they can to help push on with the project”.

Correspondence between Harvey and Catt shows the offer was certainly
taken up too. In November 2002 Harvey wrote to Catt with “some thoughts”
on the draft discussion document and he advises “we need to be a little
more aggressive about where we are going with this and how it will be completed….
I would be happy to host a gathering of interested parties in the new year
at Council as we did about a year ago if it would be of use to you”.

Sand and Sea believes there was no public notification of that first
meeting: “ We suspect it was invitation only,” says van der Haas. When
members of the group query Harvey about his involvement, they say he denies
having anything to do with the issue. “… you do not understand that this
is not an issue of me or this Council,” was one response to a Sand and
Sea member’s email inquiry.

And yet, in a letter to Catt in July 2001, shortly after the initial
meeting, Harvey says: “ If there are any particular actions that your group
recommends that I should take to keep things going at a civic level, please
don’t hesitate to drop me a line” followed by a hand-written note that
reads, “Ken, People have a good feeling that this will happen.”

Speaking to Harvey though, the problem appears a lot simpler than any
perceived collusion. The relationship between the two protagonists seems
to have simply degenerated to a point where neither party is prepared to
commit to dialogue.

“In the meetings that I have been involved with I have seen about 200
old salts complain about an idea that seemed to change every time it was
put up. I saw a lot of people talking past each other because they wanted
to. You could argue about the politics of representation all day, and to
be honest you can always fill a hall with people trying to stop something
and not fill a phone box with a group trying to start up a good idea –
that’s local politics for you, “ says Harvey.

Harvey openly admits his personal involvement and tells Investigate
that, as the relevant council most affected by the proposal, Waitakere
City Council has been interested from the start as well.

“We are and have been for the last 10 years a pro-conservation eco-city,
so proposals that strengthen the biodiversity of the marine ecology have
our keen interest, “ he says.

“ Early on I urged the idea of a marine park on and encouraged all interested
parties to come together in the council chamber to clarify what was being
proposed and gauge the nature of the work that would need to be done.

“ Personally, I have a deep commitment to the west coast and I want
to see that protected. We’ve seen what just leaving it to people who are
supposed to care for it does i.e. just the locals, or just the Ministry
of Fisheries, or just the Department of Conservation – and what it does
is protect not much.

“ Who started the idea? Well it wasn’t me if that’s what you’re asking.
For me the point is a lot of people thought it was a good idea at the same
time and I cheered it on.”

Perhaps people thought it was a good idea at the time because, two years
on from that upbeat letter he sent to the working group convenor, Harvey’s
tone has clearly changed, possibly in response to the rumblings of opposition.

In correspondence dated 27 May 2003, Harvey informs Catt: “ Here’s my
clear advice: go to ground. The reason is – and one that the working party
can legitimately give – is that the Minister of Conservation is about to
put into the House his Marine Reserves Bill…. Align you programme until
well after the timing and scheduling of the Select Committee submission
process carefully, as the media will be now watching this very closely.
The Minister I am sure will not appreciate another bill infecting the debate
and potentially destabilising his bill…”

The Local Government and Environment Select Committee is presently hearing
submissions on the Marine Reserves Bill, which if passed will make it easier
to create marine reserves. Forest and Bird have collected 15,000 signatures
in support.

After Catt’s earlier comments – “ The Act is being modified to make
it easier to apply for reserves” – it is little wonder Sand and Sea sense
a scheme being hatched. But Harvey makes no secret of the fact that he
told the working group to “go to ground”.

“ I advised the working group that this was getting a lot of opposition
and that the Government had several pieces of legislation on the go that
would directly impact upon the proposal as it stood – including the Marine
Reserves Bill and then the came the foreshore issue – and that it was worth
lying low until the debates over this and other government initiatives
made the debate over the issue clearer.”

Meanwhile, Hutchison still believes Cunliffe, Carter and Harvey plan
to see “the whole of the west coast locked up in a massive marine park”
and now that the public is becoming aware of their intentions, the three
are indeed worried about a backlash affecting associated maritime legislation.

“ If there is an example of central government imposing something on
a community that they don’t want, I think they’re fearful of how the public
will react to this (Carter’s) Bill, “ he says. “ It seems like central
government imposition on a community.

“ I’m not against a marine park but I think Forest and Bird, an organisation
that has had a great deal of respect from a lot of people, myself included
up to this point, have done themselves a disservice with their approach
here.”

And that perhaps sums up this turbulent saga. No one seems to be against
a marine protection per se, they just want open and accountable dialogue,
which van der Haas says has been missing from this proposal since its inception,
to see if a west coast marine park is really necessary.

Divers say there are only about 15 days each year that the visibility
is good enough to warrant getting underwater, recreational fishers say
they are lucky to get 70 days a year when the swell is calm enough to make
boating safe. That is partly why Sand and Sea argues that an area as rugged
and wild as the west coast does not need greater safeguards: “Protection
from the elements is the best possible defence against over-extraction.”
Problem is, they say, they’re not being listened to.

Catt contests that. He says the opposing parties were offered ample
opportunity to meet and discuss their concerns, but instead they continue
to “ go around telling a whole heap of lies about what the working group
is going to do”.

It seems a shame that the real issues have been undermined by what appears
to be a clash of obstinate personalities. Beneath the shroud of mistrust
there are still underlying principles that both parties adhere to – current
policing and enforcement regimes are simply not working in some areas.
But like the waves pounding Piha’s Lion Rock, butting heads is not going
to provide any immediate solution. The absurdity is that this goes directly
against the ideology Sand and Sea and the WCWG say they were founded under
– to protect the sustainability of the beautiful west coast.

New Zealanders have a lot to thank the conservation movement for but
as the Labour Government and Maori have discovered, creating uncertainty
over what all Kiwis consider a birth-right is never going to be well received.
Some commentators say Labour’s ambivalent decision over the foreshore and
seabed claims have left the country becalmed, however, the storm over the
future of Auckland’s west coast only seems set to intensify.